Willful incompetence

Sans Game, it is impossible for men like this British doctor to understand the firm and determined failure of women to have a realistic perspective on men, although Dr. Theodore Dalrymple makes a better stab at it than most:

My patient was intelligent but badly educated, as only products of the British educational system can be after 11 years of compulsory school attendance. She thought the Second World War took place in the 1970s and could give me not a single correct historical date. I asked her whether she thought a young and violent burglar would have proved much of a companion. She admitted that he wouldn't, but said that he was the type she liked; besides which—in slight contradiction—all boys were the same.

I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, "Die, you bitch!"

"I can look after myself," said my 17-year-old.

"But men are stronger than women," I said. "When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage."

"That's a sexist thing to say," she replied.

A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.

"But it's a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact," I said.

"It's sexist," she reiterated firmly.

A stubborn refusal to face inconvenient facts, no matter how obvious, now pervades our attitude toward relations between the sexes. An ideological filter of wishful thinking strains out anything we'd prefer not to acknowledge about these eternally difficult and contested relations, with predictably disastrous results.

I meet with this refusal everywhere, even among the nursing staff of my ward. Intelligent and capable, as decent and dedicated a group of people as I know, they seem, in the matter of judging the character of men, utterly, almost willfully, incompetent.

The women's incompetence is not almost willful, it is willful. They simply don't wish to admit to the reality because doing so would inhibit their ability to "have fun" and act on the basis of their sexual desires to the extent permitted by the current strictures of the local herd to which they belong. It's not very different than the case of the young man who drinks and drives too fast. He understands intellectually that he is taking a risk, but he denies the existence of the risk in order to permit his actions to be in harmony with his emotions.

This is why one need spare no sympathy for most women who are in "abusive" relationships. They knew perfectly well what they were getting into. They knowingly chose to take the risk in order to reap the benefits of a relationship with a dangerous man rather than forgo them in choosing a relationship with a man they found less exciting. The fact that they pretend otherwise only makes them dishonest, it doesn't make them innocent victims.

For those who feel sympathy and wish to help them anyhow, it must be understood that they cannot be helped on the basis of a false paradigm. To pretend that they are not actively seeking these relationships is playing into the willful incompetence and it should not be surprising that most such efforts to help these women fail. They are bound to fail because they are based on a false model of human behavior.

Read More

You can give a woman a CS degree

But you can't make her program. A woman in technology observes a dichotomy in the current push to get women more involved in programming:

When people talk about supporting women in tech, they look at Girls Who Code  and Black Girls Code, both of which I’m sure are very worthwhile programs. What troubles me, though, is the assumption that we need to focus only on young girls – in short, we, the oh-helpful ones, are the mentors and the solution to increase the representation of women in technology is 5 or 10 years out when these girls finish college or graduate school. WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN WHO ARE HERE NOW?

If you are overlooking the women who are here now, what does that tell the girls you are supposedly bringing up to be the next generation of women in tech that you can overlook 15 years from now? Why do we hear about 16-year-old interns far more than women like me? If it is true, as the New York Times says, that in 2001-2 28% of computer science degrees went to women compared to the 10% or so now – where are those women from 12 years ago?

They dropped out. They dropped out because programming demands single-minded focus, mathematical skill, logic, and most of all, individual accountability. They dropped out because they didn't belong in the field and encouraging them to pursue it was doing them a serious career disservice. As a general rule, women don't like competitive jobs where they are held to an objective standard, particularly when they cannot easily pass off their work to others and still take credit for it.

Throw in the fact that male programmers tend to be competitive and socially graceless, which means that relatively few of them are inclined to do a woman's job for her in return for the well-practiced flash of a big smile and a few smug coos of appreciation, and it should be no surprise that even intelligent and well-trained women don't tend to last long in the industry.

(The stark contrast between the sweet expression presented when a woman is attempting to convince you to do her work for her and the rage-filled one that inadvertently appears when she hears you tell her to "do your own fucking job" can be hilarious.)

There were two female programmers at my first place of employment after college. One was attractive, athletic, married, and competent. She wasn't a star, but she calmly went about getting the job done. The other did literally nothing for two years. She never completed a single job, rotated from task to task on a regular basis, passed off her work onto others, and somehow managed to stay employed until her complete lack of productivity finally caught up to her.

Both women had CS degrees. I very much doubt the latter is still employed in any programming capacity.

This is why Girls Who Code and Black Girls Code will fail, just like every other women-in-technology initiative before it has failed. Eventually, all the training has to come to an end and the trainee has to go out and compete with the self-motivated young men who have been coding like banshees since they were in their early teens. And remember, these are smart women, so it is little wonder that they take one look at their prospects for competitive success and promptly go in for marketing, human resources, and management.

Programming is like writing. If you CAN be discouraged, you SHOULD be discouraged.

Read More

I think I see the problem

Michael Seville contemplates the intellectual equality of the sexes:

You can’t go on forever saying “The game’s not fair,” when the game has been played ten billion times, under a billion different circumstances; at least, if you are rational you cannot, unless you are prepared to say in just what way it is not fair… Just what is that factor, common to all or most past history, which has interfered with the exercise of the intellectual capacity of women?

Some people love just stringing together anecdotes: women were prevented from exercising their intellectual capacity by this obstacle in Periclean Athens, by that obstacle in Confucian China, by the other obstacle in seventeenth-century France, etc. But an equality-theorist must do more than this. He has to offer some definite explanation of why the intellectual capacity of women has so consistently met with obstacles it could not overcome, and his explanation must be one which is consistent with the equality-theory. It would obviously be no good, for example, if he were to say, “The main interfering factor has been the aggressiveness, sexual exclusiveness, and superior cunning of males.”

This suggestion, considered in itself, is by no means without merit: aggressiveness, sexual exclusiveness, and superior cunning are definite and detectable things, and I at least believe that they actually do operate in males, and do impede, to some extent, the intellectual performance of women. But of course the suggestion is not one which an equality-theorist can adopt, since to ascribe superior cunning to males is to contradict the very intellectual equality for which he contends.

Ockham's Razor suggests that the reason women are perceived to be intellectually inferior to men is that they are intellectually inferior to men. The fact that so many women cannot follow this train of thought tends to lend itself as further evidence in support of the idea.

The primary problem here is is that most people confuse intellectual inferiority with inferior value. This simply isn't the case; if nothing else, it should be obvious that the vast majority of women place superior sexual value on intellectually inferior men. The quarterback is more highly valued than the chess club champion. And young men often do the same; the cheerleader tends to be more highly valued than the valedictorian. So, why is it suddenly so upsetting when someone observes the obvious?

It is simply bizarre to claim that the sexes are equal in cognitive capacity. They are not, and the intellectual liberation of women and the vast increase in the numbers women receiving advanced education has resulted in precisely what one expect: absolutely nothing. Where is the vast flowering of human intellectual achievement we were promised by doubling the number of human geniuses being liberated from patriarchal repression and given free rein?

Well, we have 50 Shades of Grey. And Girls. So we have that going for our society.

After forty years of feminism, it should be stone cold obvious why women are intellectually inferior; the smarter a woman is, the less likely she is to have children for various reasons, including hypergamy. And our society is arguably breeding smart women out of existence faster than ever before in human history.

How, precisely, is that intelligent?

Read More

Don't accept neutering of yourself or others

Matt Walsh points to behavior that has become increasingly common in our generation:

I certainly can’t read their minds, and I don’t know what goes on behind the scenes, all I know is that the husband couldn’t seem to utter a single phrase that wouldn’t provoke exaggerated eye-rolling from his wife.

She disagreed with everything he said.

She contradicted nearly every statement.

She even nagged him.

She brought up a “funny” story that made him out to be incompetent and foolish. He laughed, but he was embarrassed.

She was gutting him right in front of us. Emasculating him. Neutering him. Damaging him.

It was excruciating.

It was tragic.

It also was, or is becoming, pretty par-for-the-course. The respect deficiency in our culture has reached crisis levels.

Now, some of us are fortunate enough to have wives who understand how awful this sort of behavior makes them look to others. Some of us are fortunate have wives who simply wouldn't do this out of the decency of their own hearts, or perhaps even out of respect for their husbands.

But many men don't.

So, I have two pieces of advice. One is for the men whose wives behave like this. Gentlemen, life is too short. The sex isn't worth it. Don't put up with this. Don't permit anyone, much less your wife, to treat you this way. Call her out. When she nonsensically contradicts you, crush the contradiction and make her look like a fool. When she tries to play belittlement off as a joke, tell her "it's not fucking funny to me."

The other is for the men who witness it. Gentlemen, don't sit there in uncomfortable silence. That sort of woman views silence as acquiescence to her bullying. Call her out. Ask her if her behavior is appropriate. Ask her if she isn't embarrassed to treat her husband like that. Alternatively, agree and amplify. Take the scorn she is pouring on her husband and add to it with apparent glee.

In either case, remember that women are MORTIFIED at being called out in front of the herd. It is their kryptonite. So use it when they get out of line.

Read More

Chivalry is dead, ladies

You killed it. It's dead. You can vote and you can work and you can divorce now, so shut the hell up and stop expecting men to protect you, provide for you, or even bothering to lift a finger for you. You wanted "equality" and you got it. So, stop whining about it already:

Has anyone ever helped pop my bag up into the overhead compartment? Nope. Have I seen any other woman helped? Nope. This week, an engineer in his 50s just stood there in the aisle, his hands clasped, as I played Olympic weight-lifting with my suitcase right in front of him. Just stood there, looking intently at the sticky carpet. Probably afraid to chip a nail or something.

Has the women's liberation movement really scared the bejesus out of men this much? When did it become chivalrous to steadfastly look away and not bother to help? If a 6am flight is anything to go by, you'd think the concept of a gentleman was well and truly dead.

I promise you, I won't get angry or defensive or give you attitude, I'll in fact be super-grateful and flash you an extra-big smile despite the lack of sleep.

Which brings me to the final dismount. Even before the seatbelt sign goes off, the jackets get put on, the suitcases get territorially placed in the aisle, and the competitive rush to get off that plane begins.

Of course, I'm left to struggle with my own bag. It's not that I expect help, it's just the harshness of it all I find a bit surprising.

I do not help single women in any circumstance in which I wouldn't help a man. I do always help mothers with young children, which can be a little amusing on those occasions when you find yourself standing on a train with a stroller and a baby while the mother is on the platform wrestling with her other kids, very much hoping that the train doesn't pull away before she gets on board.

But I don't help other men stow their luggage, so why on Earth would I help some perfectly healthy young woman who professes to be not only strong and independent, but my equal?

As Instapundit correctly noted: "Chivalry was a system, which imposed behavioral obligations on women as well as on men. Women were happy to cast their obligations off, yet seem perennially surprised that men haven’t stayed exactly the same."

Ray Rice is the perfect image of equality in action. Based on the police summons of both the Baltimore running back and his fiance, his fiance hit him and Rice promptly hit her right back. Is that what feminists wanted? Because that's what they got, and they damn well deserve it too.

Ideologies have consequences.

Read More

If you're fat, it's your fault

This should suffice to shut up all the people who attempt to argue that fatties are suffering from anything but a surfeit of food and a dearth of exercise:

A new study suggests that obese women get just one hour of vigorous exercise a year, while obese men don't do much better at fewer than four hours. The findings startled the researchers, whose main focus was finding better ways to measure how much exercise people get.

"They're living their lives from one chair to another," said Edward Archer, a research fellow with the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. "We didn't realize we were that sedentary. There are some people who are vigorously active, but it's offset by the huge number of individuals who are inactive."

The researchers found that the average obese woman gets the equivalent of about one hour of exercise a year. For men, it's 3.6 hours a year.

"The data was there, but no one looked at it and parsed it the way we did," Archer said. In the big picture, "there is a great deal of variability; some are moving probably a fair amount. But the vast majority [of people] are not moving at all."

It's not that hard. Seriously, it's just not. I lead the sedentary life of a lion. For 23 hours of the day, I do nothing at all. Not a damn thing. And for one hour a day, I run, I lift, or I bike. That's all it takes. 4.2 percent of your time. 4.2 percent.

Read More

Divorce greed

Some women have to learn the hard way that marriage isn't a lottery. But from the male perspective, it's nice to know that some ugly stories have happy endings:

It is a decision she surely regrets For Mel Gibxon's ex Oksana Grigorieva has filed for bankruptcy less than four years after knocking back a $15m child custody settlement offer from the Braveheart star.

Her biggest problem is her legal bills, for she owes five lawyers a mammoth $250,000. During her bitter custody battle with the Mad Max actor she sacked more than 40 lawyers. At the end of it all the Oscar-winning star was ordered to pay just $750,000 to Grigorieva, which he is stumping up in installments.

The 2011 decision came a year after she turned down a rumoured $15m offer of settlement.

Regardless of whether one is talking about divorce or a business matter, a reasonable settlement is almost always wiser than going to court. Of course, convincing a greedy gold-digger that she'll do better to accept the settlement may be impossible; some people are always going to shoot for the Moon no matter how low the odds are.

Read More

No matter how they crash and burn

No matter how they crash and burn
The feminists will never learn,
That girls are girls and boys are boys
And sluts are nothing but sex toys.
Self-respect can ne'er be gained
From female desire unrestrained.

What's driving this new crop of female antiheroes? Unsworth, 35, who drew on her own friendships for Animals, a gloriously over-the-top account of female friendship, says it's partially a desire for something new.

"There's room for books about getting the guy, and I enjoy reading the good ones, but there need to be alternatives," she says. "I felt as though there weren't many stories that featured women just dicking about, and I also wanted to address the idea that if you keep partying, you're an idiot or a failure – like there's just one way to live, which there isn't."

A similar desire to depict a woman happy to live outside of society's boundaries lay behind Pilger's Eat My Heart Out, with its furious young anti-heroine. "Some reviewers have said Ann-Marie is unlikeable, damaged and lost, but I see her as strong," says 29-year-old Pilger. "She's frustrated at the social facades that make up so much of daily life. If you're a man, you can be a disaffected antihero and have a proper existential crisis, but if your character is female, her concerns are dismissed as the petty stuff of personal life."

She sees her angry protagonist as strong, but everyone else sees her as "unlikeable, damaged and lost". Here's a hint: everyone else is right. It's actually rather remarkable that female novelists have managed to produce a new crop of protagonists that make Bridget Jones look sane and stable by comparison.

And our societal devolution continues....

Read More

Alpha Mail: "Put off career" says female PhD

A woman who is more accomplished academically in a much more intellectually challenging field than nearly any feminist you will ever meet speaks against the feminist fetish of career aspirations. She writes in response to a quote from yesterday's post:

"The idea that women are too focused on being intellectual, or shouldn't have career aspirations that would allow them to earn more than their (potential) husbands is absurd and patently offensive."

She's wrong. It's not absurd or offensive, it's straight-up truth. And it's not even so much about the money (although, for the health of a marriage I do believe the husband should be the breadwinner), but about sacrificing career aspirations to do the single most important thing a woman can do, which is to get married and raise a family.

I am a highly intellectual woman with a successful professional career, and I realize now what a mistake I've made by not settling down and having children early. I married 12 years ago, but put off having children in order to finish graduate school and establish my scientific career. Last December, at the age of 42, I had a baby daughter. I realize now that this would've been MUCH easier 10 or 20 years ago. It's not only a struggle to care for a newborn at my age, but making the sudden shift from a woman who has, for decades, been very busy with intellectual pursuits and relatively unencumbered by responsibility to a stay-at-home mom has been unexpectedly difficult.

My own dear departed mother got married at 19 and had me and my brother at 21 and 22 years of age. I look at old photos of her with us as babies, and she looks deliriously happy. She LOVED being a mother. She had that crazy young-person energy you need to raise babies and no established adult life that she felt like she was losing in order to become a mother. Later, when my brother and I were older, she went back to university to finish her degree and enjoyed many happy years as a teacher.

I regret putting off children for so long. I wish I had put off my graduate education and career in order to have had more healthy children. (My first daughter had a fatal chromosomal abnormality and was stillborn. The risk for such problems increases sharply with maternal age -- another reason to start having children young.) The one thing I did right was to learn to cook and keep house, the love and skill of which I learned from my mother at a young age. But motherhood has not come easy at 40+. For that reason, I will tell every girl I know (including my daughter) to not make the same mistake I did. Put off the career. Learn to cook and keep house, find a good man and get married young, and start having babies as soon as possible.

So, who are you going to listen to, young women? Who do you think knows what she's talking about, the woman with both the PhD and the child or the crazy cat ladies with neither physics degrees nor children?

Read More

Alpha Mail: Don't feel pity for the single cat lady

Chances are, she's been warned many, many times and fully merits her fate. This was the response to an article in the Wall Street Journal which advised college women to spend more time focusing on their future marriages than their careers:

What follows is an interesting string of comments about that article that I lifted from Facebook. I know some of these people. Names have been replaced with initials to protect the ignorant.  My comments are in italics:   SS (posted the article to Facebook): I had to check the date on this article incredulously a couple times. Eff this. Although I'm pretty much a 1950's housewife myself. [This woman met her husband in college, dropped out, held a few clerical jobs, and is now a stay-at-home mom, but the article is crazy?]
    BPK: Oh God. This isn't satire? Yikes. [I'm slightly impressed that the first response wasn't "Wow just wow" or "What the actual fuck" or involved the word "bullshit"]

    KJ: That's bullshit and a half. [There it is. It's bullshit, case closed, end of discussion.]

    AB: WTFH?!?! OH HELL NAW - FUCKTHATSHIT [The feminists fall into formation quickly]

    SS: Can't believe the Wall Street Journal published this. [I'm not entirely sure why she would consider herself an expert on what the WSJ would or would no publish. I can almost bet my life that she has never read an article from the WSJ web site that wasn't brought to her attention by a feminist/Democrat associate]

    AB: I can't either. This is appalling.

    RM: "It's okay if you don't want to make marriage your primary goal in life, but here's how to structure your entire life to ensure that you'll get married." [Liberal Catholic, failed first marriage, gained a lot of weight, public school English teacher. Is for some reason appalled that Susan Patton is offering advise to the large number of women that are making marriage the primary goal their in the life.]

    SS: "Because admit it, married is the best thing you can be."

    JM: That was disgusting. I couldn't even read half of it! [This was one of my favorites. It's strange the things different people find disgusting: killing children and rewarding irresponsibility would be on my list. Giving women who want to have a family the advise to not fuck around because time is short is what disgusts her. And this strong empowered suffragette "couldn't even read half".]
    PL: Well I'm going to say I agree with the concept. I didn't start looking until I was done with college and my internship and we see there that got me. Most then were already married. College has the best mix of men who are more like you. I tell young women now. Find. Him. In. College. Because after, it's horrible awful frustrating nightmare of a dating world. [First dissenter. This one is 40-something, no kids, never married. No cats, but a French bulldog, which is arguably worse. She's a goofy sort of welfare and free healthcare type of liberal, but not a bitter feminist. Usually there's no seriousness in anything she says, so this comment really stuck out to me.]

    PL: If you want to be married that is. Haha.

    CBW: That HAS to be a joke. I cannot wrap my head around it any other way. She's trolling us. [She can't believe everyone doesn't think just like her. Women aren't supposed to be empowered to think outside the orthodoxy I guess.]
    PL: I agree the article is horribly written. But the concept that college is the easiest place to find a husband if you desire to be married? Yah. Cause after is a crappy dating world. I. Know. Girl I could tell you stories. Not dating a lot in college with eyes open to find someone is one of the very few things in life I regret. [A woman admitting regret and making mistakes, and the rest will have none of it.]

    SS: Keeping in mind that I got married when I was 20 and am being a hypocrite, isn't college a little young to be making a decision on a life partner? (I fully accept that I was married remarkably young and I am very lucky that it has worked out as well as it has. I would not recommend getting married at 20 to others though. [My husband] and I have managed to somehow grow up together instead of growing apart.)

    ML: I'd like to hope that whoever picked the stock photo for the article agrees with our shock and disgust and went out of their way to find the 50s-est looking picture they could find. [Any break from feminist articles of faith elicits "shock and disgust"]

    AH: Bullshit artcle. What kind of world us  that author from in thinking that a man/marriage is the most important thing you need in your life? This just cannot be a serious article.

    PL: I don't think so [SS]. A whole lot of people do. And we decide what our life's work will be in high school when we choose a major and a college.

    ML: [addressing PL from above] No we don't, we may pick a major and a college but it's how we grow and evolve while actually IN college that chooses our life's work, and even our life's work is rarely a static thing. Even if you end up in your chosen field I can't believe there's anyone who's doing exactly what they thought they'd be doing in high school. And that's the problem with the article too. It's taken something that's part of the organic natural progression of something and making it a static goal. Instead of general dating tips which may lead to more complex, vulnerable, mature relationship it's teaching young women how to land a husband. [Who wants to succeed in obtaining their desires? Just let shit happen.]
    CBW: If my divorce taught me anything, it's that there are FAR more important things in the world than being somebody's wife. [If it's not important to her, it's not important to any woman. So says the statistically likely instigator of the divorce.]

    SS: Right. 50% of marriages end in divorce. If we groom ourselves from a very young age to become something that has a 50% chance to fail we're taking a big risk.

    RL(male) I don't know, if you figure her target audience is young women heading into the corporate world I think her advice is spot on (but poorly written). Actually for young men and women. Approach your personal life like your professional, network and network now. Dating in the corporate environment is a mine field.

    PL: Well, I'm doing what I said I'd be doing in the 7th grade - I'm an architect.  But I'm not married and THAT I regret. Telling young men and women who want to be married and have a family that they can wait and meet someone later in life is just a damn lie.

    SMM: "Once you're living off campus and in the real world, you'll be stunned by how smart the men are not." True story.

    RL: Esp if you're female, every year you get older but 20 y/o's stay the same age.

    ML: As a 26 year old who is no longer in college and who does indeed have trouble dating now and who WOULD like to be married and have a family I'll be damned if I'm going to interpret that it's because I wasn't marriage-minded enough when I was 20 and now I've just missed the boat. [This one missed the boat at conception because "she" is a post-op transsexual. I doubt being an older saggier transexual in 10 years will lead to more successful dating.]

    RL: Maybe not missed the boat, just that there isn't as many boats in the port. I did it, I was there.

    PL: What [RL] said. It's just so much harder is all.

    RL: There's a lot of finding someone that's single and then finding out WHY they're still single.

    ML: Well, I'm still looking for The One and I think like I always did that he'll be someone that I just find naturally...I'd feel like if I went at it like this article suggests I'd end up clinging to someone out of desperation than love, but that may just be me.

    RL: That's why I'm saying the article is poorly written and I'm saying "network". I would have written it to say,"while dating in college, make a point to keep in-touch with the ones that share your goals/values/interests. Why? Because when you're in a place that you want to get married he might not be still available, but he might have a buddy that is."

    CBW: The idea that women are too focused on being intellectual, or shouldn't have career aspirations that would allow them to earn more than their (potential) husbands is absurd and patently offensive. I can't believe anyone is even trying to defend this article. Sure, it's easier to meet people in college. This is why online dating sites now exist. Every other premise she poses in this article is b.s.

    ML: Haha if I lost the chance to be with the guy I would SO not want the guy's buddy...I suppose that's my main block with this, the EPIIIIIIIIIIIIIC sexism of the article aside, I'm immensely put off by a rational, risk-assessment approach to dating with the goal being marriage, it feels very unnatural to me-plus, I feel almost like I'm using people when I try to network as it is, I'd definitely not be able to bring that into the dating sphere. Perhaps I'm a hopeless romantic. Or naïve. Either way, I do not regret any past decisions that may have led to me being single, nor will I ever, even if my dreams of having a family never come true. Also, I just read the comments, which are full of men explaining that feminism has ruined marriage because a woman who cares about a career is not marriage material and women need to refocus on motherhood and relearn 'feminine patience' and so now I'm too upset to rationally discuss this without using a large amount of violent swear words except to say that I feel the very idea of teaching anyone to be 'marriage minded' is dangerously regressive no matter how it's presented, and I'm out.

What a great bunch of gals! Notice how some of them can't even write correctly, but repeatedly try to claim the article is "poorly written".

Read More

The truth about women in the military

From a comment at VP:

I'm an active duty physician assistant in an infantry combat brigade at one of the "big two" bases. Let me tell you the unadulterated truth firsthand. Most female soldiers are so fat that they face chapter under the Army Weight Control Program. To avoid this, they often become pregnant so they can get out on a chapter 8 and keep their benefits or no longer meet the AWCP requirements due to being pregnant. My unit is deploying. There are two female PAs in our BDE (out of 7). One came up pregnant a week prior to deployment training and the other is getting medically boarded out for a variety of nonspecific issues. It is a fucking joke. Everyone knows it but no one can speak it. God help us if someone ever invades our country. Without air superiority, our only offense will be throwing psych meds at the enemy in an attempt to blind them by hitting them in the eyes, dumping our sleep meds into their water supply, or getting them hooked on narcotic pain meds.

This came in response to the news that Britain's women warriors in Afghanistan have proven 33 times more likely to get pregnant than killed in action.

Read More

Equality demands it

Women should soon be eligible for the draft. Because equality:

NCFM has filed a lawsuit that challenges the legality of requiring only males to register for the military draft.  The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, Case Number 2:13-cv-02391-DSF-MAN .

The 1981 U.S. Supreme Court equal protection case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) held that men and women were not similarly situated in the U.S. military because women were excluded from combat, therefore women did not have to register for the draft.  Dissenting Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “The Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of ‘ancient canards about the proper role of women’.”

In January, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women will be allowed to enter all combat positions in all branches of the U.S. military, thereby removing the sole legal basis for requiring only males to register for the draft.

NCFM’s complaint alleges that because men and women are now similarly situated in the military, Selective Service’s requirement that only males must register for the draft violates the rights of both men and women to equal treatment under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under United States Code, Title 28, Section 1983.

Furthermore, men should be advised that if physically attacked by a woman, they should feel free to defend themselves every bit as vigorously as if they were attacked by another man. Because equality.

Black knight the hell out of every woman who so much as mentions the word equality. Treat her exactly like you'd treat a man who runs his mouth, who lays a hand upon you, who dares to get in your face and challenge you. The only way women will ever be convinced of the error of their feminist ways is to be forced to live up to the reality of their ideal.

And besides, there are few things funnier than the look on a woman's face when she suddenly realizes, to her abject horror, that she isn't going to escape the consequences of her own misbehavior by playing the "I'm a girl" card.

Read More

Dude, she's still a princess

Charles Blow fails to realize that he's admitted to a failure of fatherhood:

One day when my twins, a boy and a girl, were about 7 years old, we were out running errands.

We left one store and headed for the car. I entered the driver’s door, my son got in the front passenger door, but I noticed that I didn’t hear a rear door open and close.

I looked around to see that my daughter was still outside the car — her arms crossed, one hand clutching a little green purse made of stiff paper — staring disapprovingly at the door.

I rolled down the back window and asked, “What are you doing?”

She responded, “I’m a princess, and princesses don’t touch doorknobs.”

Having no idea where she had gotten such a notion, I was equal parts amused and irritated by it. I said, “Get in the car, sweetheart.” She repeated her refusal.

This was now a standoff.

So, I started to inch the car forward as if I was going to leave without her. She jumped in the car in a huff: “Why didn’t you open that door for me, Williams?”

“Who is Williams?” I asked.

“You,” she said. “On TV when people have servants they’re always called Williams or something like that.”

I had had enough. I turned in my seat and explained to her that, yes, I did call her my princess, and although I loved her dearly, I would not pamper her. I told her that her value and worth were not in what men would do for her, but in what she could do for herself. I told her that in our family, as in life, she would have to be self-sufficient and self-reliant, and that included deigning to touch doorknobs, or in this case, car door handles. And I told her that if she ever called me Williams again, she would be punished.

Williams disappeared into the ether.

Now my daughter is a high school junior, a great student who often makes the honor roll, and a championship fencer who is ranked No. 2 in the country in her age group and weapon. She wants to go to college and study to become a doctor.

She has blossomed into the self-assured, self-sufficient and self-reliant young woman I hoped she’d become, and she now rails against, and writes about, gender bias and gender stereotype. But she still likes to carry a nice purse. Some things never change.

When I think of my amazing young lady going off into a world where there is still a gender-pay gap, it makes me furious.

So, his daughter is about to go off to university, where women are coddled and men are punished for the crime of being male, and he's already preemptively outraged by the fact that she might get paid less if she decides to work fewer hours than her hypothetical male counterparts.

Then again, perhaps she'll get lucky and hook up with a lazy, unemployed guy with a prison record who is content to live off her salary. That's a model that is not exactly unheard of in the Black community, after all. Won't that be empowering!

Read More

Ye cats

One cannot hold all women responsible for the thoughts and words of another woman. One simply cannot. And yet, it's hard to escape the thought that at a mere four years of age, this very young man has already surpassed his mother in rational maturity:

I woke up this morning to my nearly 5-year-old son, his big blue eyes close to mine, saying "Mama! Let's play!" Somehow, I dragged myself to the living room where he had set up dinosaurs. He told me the rules: "My dinosaurs have superpowers and yours don't. Mine find yours and then kill them with their power!" That woke me up.

I wondered if I should say something to him about killing -- again. I tried to redirect the violence in the play by having my dinosaurs offer friendship and joint living in a cave. He didn't bite. "No! they are not friends! OK mama? OK?" "OK," I said, in resignation. Because at that moment, it felt like I had lost that battle.

What happened to my gentle little boy who would cradle his dolls if they happened to fall on the ground? Where is the boy who would never consider the possibility of intentionally hurting another? And where did this one, who pretends to shoot others, come from? "My son will never do that," I used to say.

As usual, parenting is humbling.

Guns first showed up last year. Amidst his love affair with Mary Poppins and Annie, he also started asking about weapons. He wanted me to cut a gun out of cardboard so he could take it to school. Mortified, I imagined his teachers' reactions when they saw it.

We talked about how guns are best used for protection, only by those whose job it is to protect -- the police, the army. I told myself that he was interested in guns in the same way he was interested in a policeman's pad, handcuffs and hat -- fun tools of the trade.

Eventually, he didn't accept my explanation and started asking questions I didn't have the answers to. And they were questions that I ask myself all the time. Why would we need protection? From whom? Does protecting mean hurting someone else?

One hardly knows where to start. But it is educational to see the way the woman's mind immediately leaps to guns being "best used" by these strange magical authorities whose roles she could never even imagine usurping.

Read More

Single mothers are bad for children

It seems strange to have to point out that single mothers are bad for children, but since Americans have lost all ability to utilize reason and common sense and only recognize appeals to what they recognize as authority, we have no choice but to hit them repeatedly in the head with scientific studies:

Just as some conservatives have started talking seriously about rising inequality and stagnant incomes, some liberals have finally begun to admit that our stubbornly high rates of poverty and social and economic immobility are closely entwined with the rise of single motherhood.

But that’s where agreement ends. Consistent with its belief in self-sufficiency, the right wants to see more married-couple families. For the left, widespread single motherhood is a fact of modern life that has to be met with vigorously expanded government support. Liberals point out, correctly, that poverty rates for single-parent households are lower in most other advanced economies, where the welfare state is more generous.

That argument ignores a troubling truth: Single-parent families are not the same in the United States as elsewhere. Simply put, unmarried parents here are more likely to enter into parenthood in ways guaranteed to create turmoil in their children’s lives. The typical American single mother is younger than her counterpart in other developed nations. She is also more likely to live in a community where single motherhood is the norm rather than an alternative life choice.

The sociologist Kathryn Edin has shown that unlike their more educated peers, these younger, low-income women tend to stop using contraception several weeks or months after starting a sexual relationship. The pregnancy — not lasting affection and mutual decision-making — that often follows is the impetus for announcing that they are a couple. Unsurprisingly, by the time the thrill of sleepless nights and colicky days has worn off, two relative strangers who have drifted into becoming parents together notice they’re just not that into each other. Hence, the high breakup rates among low-income couples: Only a third of unmarried parents are still together by the time their children reach age 5.

Also complicating low-income single parenthood in America is what the experts call “multipartner fertility.” Both divorced and never-married Americans are more likely to repartner and start “second families” than Europeans, but the trend is far more common among unmarried parents. According to data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study at Princeton and Columbia Universities, over 60 percent of low-income babies will have at least one half sibling when they are born; by the time they are 5, the proportion will have climbed to over 70 percent.

All of this would be of merely passing interest if it weren’t for the evidence that this kind of domestic churn is really bad news for kids. The more “transitions” experienced by a child — the arrival of a stepparent, a parental boyfriend or girlfriend, or a step- or half sibling — the more children are likely to have either emotional or academic problems, or both.

Considering that divorce and child support are justified on the basis of "for the children", shouldn't single motherhood be banned? You know, "for the children"? Or were the children always just a veil for the Female Imperative?

Also, before anyone is moved to leap to provide an anecdotal because feelbad, please keep in mind that we are talking about averages, probabilities, and statistical outcomes. Everyone already knows there are outliers. There is no need for anyone to demonstrate an inability to understand statistics.

Read More

No sympathy for the stupid

Of either sex. Morpheus notes that men these days have no excuse for being caught off-guard by female nature:

Deti, you and I grew up when this information was not widely available or accessible. There was no Internet. There was no Roissy or Rollo. No one had formulated this body of knowledge yet. We can be forgiven our mistakes out of ignorance. Men today have no excuse with the easy accessibility of reading and learning this material. Probably serves him right if this Laura Fraser divorce rapes him and he gets killed on child support once she hits the 7-10 year ennui realizing she “loves him” but “isn’t IN LOVE with him”.

This is true of women as well. They have NO EXCUSE for getting pumped-and-dumped by an Alpha player. The information is out there. The processes and mechanisms are very well understood and articulated. The female 7 who tries to lock down a relationship with a male 9 with sex has no excuse for being surprised by the outcome, no more than a delta male who marries a thirty-something single mother who is superficially out of his league does when she suddenly gets unhappy and decides she would prefer an unemployed boyfriend and a well-funded divorce.

The facts are out there. The truth is out there. If you're going to persist in delusion and denial, that's absolutely fine, but don't expect anyone to have sympathy for you when your obviously terrible decisions produce the expected consequences.

Read More

An Alpha widow

Han Solo annotates the confession of a Alpha widow:

I recently came across a photo of a sexy Brazilian man I had an affair with a few years ago. (OK, I Googled him.) [You know a woman has a robust hamster when she tries to make her nostalgic searching for photos sound like she just "came across" one.] When I saw his sly smile and unruly black hair, I couldn’t help thinking that, by comparison, my live-in boyfriend wasn’t quite as darkly seductive or exciting. [Well, that's because he isn't!  Alpha widow anyone?  Fuck phantoms* lurking in the dark?  Notice how the hot guy from her past still lurks in the dark shadows of her heart but she settled for the stable nice guy.  Changing lanes anyone?  A certain version of AFBB, perhaps?

*Fuck phantom--a phrase coined by Bastiat Blogger:  a man from a woman's sexual past who lingers in her erotic memory, often the cause of intense longing, desire and withdrawal symptoms]

I met the Brazilian in line for a film screening [...this guy sounds like the fuck phantom of the opera...] while visiting Manhattan from San Francisco. I was convinced I’d found my ideal man: intellectual, witty, artistic, and hot. We spent a passionate week together, and when I left town, I thought I was leaving behind a new long-distance boyfriend—one who, it turned out, didn’t like to call or e-mail…ever. I thought our fling was the start of a relationship; he thought it was a fling, period. [Typical delusion where the man has clearly placed the woman on the fuck ladder and she thinks she's on the relationship ladder.  See this study where women fuck hotter men and where more women than men thought they were in a committed relationship while more men than women thought it was just sex.]

Disappointing, but it fit my usual pattern. [In the sphere we're quite familiar with this "usual pattern" of women hypergamously wanting the hot guy to commit but usually ending up as a fling.] I would fall for a brilliant guy with an irresistible smile who never quite fell for me but who possessed all the qualities I liked in a man: a sense of humor, certified smarts, smoldering looks. Each time, these men—dashing chefs, moody architects—would give me just enough attention to keep me in their narcissistic orbit. Whether or not they’d ever call was just part of the thrill, always keeping me on edge. Outwardly, I told myself I was having fun and it was just a matter of time before someone wanted to settle down; inside, I started to worry that I wasn’t lovable or exciting enough.

[Notice how she would fall for guys that wouldn't fall for her.  Of course, she hamsters out and accuses them of being jerks and narcissists.  Maybe they were but more than likely they were men that could get hotter and nicer women than her and so of course they would only view her as fling material.  Regardless of how outsiders would rank this woman and her fuck-fellows, in the only market that matters, namely the market of HIM and HER, her relationship value in his eyes was far below his value in her eyes and thus he never commits.  And since there's a recurring pattern here, it's easy to conclude that she is a habitual hypergamous chaser, always trying to catch the man of her dreams.  And notice how she thinks she's oh so close and that just next time the brooding, spontaneous hotty will finally fall in love with her.

Then she worries about whether she's lovable enough.  Well, let me tell you this straight out.  No, you're not lovable enough to the men you're choosing.  They only see you on the fuck ladder, not on the love-and-marriage ladder.  This is one of the hardest red pill truths that the more hypergamous half of women have to confront:  the man you can get to commit to you will nearly always be less hot, exciting or famous than the man you can get to fuck you.

And another important point is that you will feel low self esteem when you get flinged and flung, elated and deflated, pumped and dumped. When your expectations are too high then you will feel that you're not good enough...but this isn't just a feeling, it's the cold, hard truth of the morning walk of shame. The actual truth is that you simply aren't "good enough" in the hot bad boy's eyes or the successful "perfect" guy's to induce his commitment.]

Of course, this woman not a cliche. Her behavior is a common phenomenon that is a consequence of unrestrained female hypergamy combined with a sexually feral society. And its results are easily anticipated.

Read More

Sex education: vibrant edition

I really fail to see how anyone could possibly object to this multicultural approach to sex education. After all, in the USA, kindergarten teachers are hell-bent on teaching their students how to apply condoms to bananas:

Girls as young as ten are being sent to initiation camps in Malawi to be taught about how to have sex and in some cases lose their virginity. The girls are told by their families they are attending a camp with their friends, but when they arrive they are shown how to have sex and told they must lose their 'child dust' as soon as they can or they will get a skin disease.

When she was aged 10 Grace was sent to an initiation camp which took place not far from her home in Golden Village, where Grace lives with her grandmother, reports CNN. 'I was playing outside when my mother told me I would marry. My life was ruined': Ethiopian child bride, forced into marriage at 10, pregnant at 13 and widowed by 14, on the moment her world changed forever

During her week-long stay she said she was taught her about respecting her elders and doing household chores, but also how to have sex by the women that led the camp who are known as he women, known as anamkungwi, or 'key leaders'. She told a group of journalists visiting Malawi with the United Nations Foundation that the women  demonstrated sexual positions and encouraged girls to do 'sexual cleansing,' also called kusasa fumbi, which meant they should get rid of their inexperience with sex through practice.

I'm just curious as to what grounds American advocates of sex education could possibly find this hands-on teaching to be objectionable. It seems to me to be an obvious consequence of the trend that began in the seventies. What are we to conclude from this, that one culture's approach to sex education is less viable than another's? Perhaps it is the American secular approach that is simply too repressed for its own good.

Read More

Protect yourselves, ladies

So whatever happened to all those strong, independent women who are equal to men? It's always amusing how women's pretensions to equality disappear the moment danger appears:

"Where are our men? Why are they not protecting us?" Sanchez continued, her voice full of frustration. "Men are failing us. I feel as though we are not being protected."

Like a lot of us, she's hot as hell about what's been happening. Sanchez, though, is turning her outrage into action by reaching out to other local women, urging them to gather with her at 9 a.m. Saturday at the site where Thomas was killed, to call on city officials and also on their communities to protect them...

He pointed out that the old code of the streets, that thieves don't hurt women and children, is no longer honored.

Men have been subjected to forty years of propaganda telling them that those old codes are outdated no longer apply. They have been taught from kindergarten that men and women are exactly the same. So, women shouldn't be surprised when bad men no longer treat them with kid gloves, but prey upon them as mercilessly as they do upon other men.

Nor should they be surprised when good men won't lift a finger or run any risks to defend them.

If you want my protection, then you had damned well better be willing to admit that you are not my equal, that you are not my peer, and you had better subscribe to those old codes. One cannot appeal to that which does not exist. Men haven't failed women, women simply rejected the old codes and the male protection that was a part of it without thinking through the consequences.

Read More

Attraction is not value

Dr. Helen finds it hard to believe that men aren't attracted to female intelligence or academic credentials:

Just Four Guys has an interesting post up on “Why Women Fail with Men.” The advice basically boils down to: “Be nice. Be pretty. Don’t get fat. Be available.” The author also says: And for the eleventy billionth time: Men are NOT attracted to your job, your salary, your credentials, your professional achievements, or your accomplishments. Burnishing your curriculum vitae will not help you one iota in finding a man for a lasting relationship. Adding initials after your name denoting advanced degrees or certifications will not help you one iota in finding a man for a lasting relationship.

Okay, some of these points make sense but I have to disagree with a few of them, particularly the latter. I think that it depends on what you are looking for in a relationship. If you are a smart, successful women with lots of credentials, there are men out there who like that and actively seek smart women. What men don’t like is a phony who uses her credentials to look important. I think if a woman is smart and successful but down to earth and “real,” there are plenty of men who like those qualities, credentials included.

What do you think?

I think Dr. Helen is wrong. I think it is entirely natural that an intelligent woman with a PhD who is an accomplished writer in a happy and successful marriage finds it very difficult to believe that her husband isn't primarily attracted to what she quite reasonably considers some of her more impressive characteristics. But correlation, as we are so often reminded, is not causation.

The key is to look at the word "attracted". While a man may value a woman's intelligence, while he may value her accomplishments, he is not attracted to them. No man wants to fuck a diploma. It all starts with attraction, physical attraction, birds and bees, tight butts and firm breasts.

Here is the question Dr. Helen and other smart, accomplished women might do well to consider asking themselves. "If I didn't have my intelligence and I didn't have my accomplishments, would my husband be any less sexually attracted to me?" If the answer is no, well, then it should be obvious that while those things may be valued for themselves, they are not the attracting factors. The husbands might value those various attributes and accomplishments, but such things are the icing, not the cake.

I, personally, see high intelligence and academic credentials as an actual disattracting factor. Not all men agree with me, but I am hardly alone. I strongly prefer agreeability and a pleasant personality, and those things tend to be somewhat rare among the well-educated cognitive elite.

Read More

Don't defend the guilty

At Alpha Game, we rightly focus on the evils that women do because our mainstream media culture is resolutely anti-male. But that same anti-male culture isn't above suddenly giving certain men a pass when it suits them, men such as accused child molester Woody Allen.

It's a little harder to dismiss the accusations as Mia Farrow's bitterness at her betrayal, as some did, when those accusations are being made directly and publicly by her daughter:

[W]hen I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains....

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

It's important to not get so caught up in defending men that we forget that some men are truly the monsters that the feminists attempt to portray us all as being. Indeed, it is important that we police our own ranks, if only to avoid handing them an easy and effective rhetorical weapon with which to hammer us.

This doesn't prove that Woody Allen did it, but his sexually obsessed, neurotic career, and his behavior with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter does tend to lend credence to the charges.

Read More

Plumper princesses

Because fat teenagers don't need to learn to stop stuffing their greedy little mouths, they need to be coddled and made to feel good about themselves as they gobble ever more doughnuts and ice cream:

A teenage girl has launched a petition for Disney to make a plus-size princess in the wake of controversy over whether the company promotes an unrealistic feminine ideal. Jewel Moore, a high school junior from Farmville, Virginia, wrote on her Change.org page that since Disney has such a huge influence on young girls, it should create a princess with a curvy body to 'show support to a group of girls who are otherwise horrendously bullied by the media.'... Citing research that 'a child's confidence correlates greatly with how much representation they have in the media,' she says a plus-size Disney princess would be a positive step towards body acceptance.

What Princess Chubbawumba doesn't realize is that the objective is not body acceptance, but rather, body transformation. There is no such thing as a positive step towards body acceptance, body acceptance is nothing more than the acceptance of a negative thing.

Read More